do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2168/98 of 8 October 1998 fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1079/98
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, common wheat, export refund

9. 10. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 273/21

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2168/98

of 8 October 1998

fixing the maximum export refund on common wheat in connection with the
invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1079/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
of 30 June 1992 on the common organisation of the
market in cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 923/96 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/
95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for
the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92
on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the
measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the
market for cereals (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 2094/98 (4), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the refund and/or the
tax for the export of common wheat to all third countries
with the exception of certain ACP States was opened
pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1079/98 (5),
as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2005/98 (6);

Whereas Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95
provides that the Commission may, on the basis of the
tenders notified, in accordance with the procedure laid
down in Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92,
decide to fix a maximum export refund taking account of

the criteria referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No
1501/95; whereas in that case a contract is awarded to any
tenderer whose bid is equal
than the
maximum refund, as well as to any tenderer whose bid
relates to an export tax;

to or

lower

Whereas the application of the abovementioned criteria
to the current market situation for the cereal in question
results in the maximum export refund being fixed at the
amount specified in Article 1;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
in accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 2 to 8 October 1998, pursuant
to the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No
1079/98,
the maximum refund on exportation of
common wheat shall be ECU 30,98 per tonne.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 October 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 8 October 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 126, 24. 5. 1996, p. 37.
(3) OJ L 147, 30. 6. 1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 266, 1. 10. 1998, p. 61.
(5) OJ L 154, 28. 5. 1998, p. 24.
(6) OJ L 258, 22. 9. 1998, p. 8.
Resolution on capital punishment in Iran
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: Iran, death penalty













EUR-Lex - 51998IP0900 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51998IP0900

Resolution on capital punishment in Iran  


Official Journal C 328 , 26/10/1998 P. 0192 





B4-0900, 0919, 0930 and 0941/98Resolution on capital punishment in IranThe European Parliament,- having regard to its previous resolutions on human rights in Iran,A. whereas in July 1998 Ruhu¨llah Rawhani was hanged in Iran, charged with converting a Muslim to the Baha'i religion, the first such execution since 1992, but the latest of more than 200 executions of Baha'i since the Islamic revolution of 1979,B. whereas Mary Robinson, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, protested against the execution and urged Iran not to execute three other Baha'is imprisoned in the town of Mashad,C. whereas it is reported that on 29 September 1998 confirmation was received of death sentences on two Baha'is in Mashad prison while a third is reported to have been sentenced to a ten-year prison term,1. Calls upon the authorities in Iran not to carry out any death sentences, notably those recently passed on Sirus Zabih-Moghaddam and Hedayat-Kashefi Najafabadi;2. Deplores the fact that, after a six-year break, death sentences against Baha'is in Iran are once again being carried out;3. Expresses its concern about the rising number of executions in Iran and the continuing cruel, inhumane and degrading punishments and deaths under torture as in the case of Ali Akbar Akbari;4. Is concerned that the Iranian Government has not allowed the UN special representative to visit the country;5. Calls upon the Council and the Commission to put pressure on the Iranian Government with a view to preventing any further executions;6. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Government of Iran.15
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2984/98 by John McCARTIN to the Commission. Derogations in motor insurance in Ireland
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, competition law, derogation from EU law, exchange of information, motor vehicle insurance, prices

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/149

(1999/C 135/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2980/98

by David Martin (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: The purchase of cars in the European single market

Following the difficulties that my constituents have encountered in purchasing European motor cars, with
UK specifications, from suppliers in the Netherlands and elsewhere can the Commission say what action it
is taking to ensure a genuine European single market in the purchase of cars?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions P-1957/97 by
Mr Skinner (1), E-3298/97 by Mr Watts (2), E-1851/98 by Mr Mather (3) and E-2534/98 by Mr Mather (4).

(1) OJ C 21, 22.1.1998.
(2) OJ C 158, 25.5.1998.
(3) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 90.
(4) OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 149.

(1999/C 135/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2983/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland

Is the Commission aware of the excessive cost of motor vehicle insurance in Ireland and does it consider
that this is due to lack of competition in the Irish market?

(1999/C 135/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2984/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Derogations in motor insurance in Ireland

Will the Commission state whether the Irish market for motor vehicle insurance is affected by any
derogations from EU competition policy or other legislation and can the Commission state when such
derogations come to an end?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2983/98 and E-2984/98
given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3000/98 by Gerhard HAGER to the Commission. Data searches of Austrian banks
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, HAGER
Subjects: Austria, bank, competition policy

29.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/175

(1999/C 118/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Data searches of Austrian banks

The Commission, in its capacity as the authority with responsibility for competition, is currently going
through data removed during searches of Austrian banks. Cartel cases are known to take a very long time.

Can the Commission nevertheless give an approximate future time frame for these proceedings?

If so, what is the timetable? When can concrete results be expected?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(6 November 1998)

The Honourable Member will appreciate that, as a matter of principle, the Commission is not in a position
to comment on pending proceedings. This equally applies to questions regarding expected developments
in the future.

(1999/C 118/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3001/98

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Status of public banks

The Commission is currently engaged in an investigation of the status of public-law banks which receive
State guarantees. It was called upon in the Amsterdam Treaty to do so, and is complying with this
instruction.

1.

Can the Commission say at this stage when the results of the investigation can be expected?

In how many, and which, Member States has the Commission encountered unjustified advantages

2.
arising from State guarantees, and how does it intend to proceed further?

Against

3.
(cid:145)Declaration by Luxembourg and Austria on credit institutions(cid:146)?

the background of its investigations to date, how does the Commission view the

4.

Does the declaration have any concrete effect on Austria(cid:146)s situation?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 1998)

The Commission has completed the examination and adopted the report on 17 June 1998. It aims to

1.
present the report to the Ecofin Council at its meeting on 23 November 1998.

2.
The report deals with the question of which services within the banking sector are regarded by the
Member States as (cid:145)services of general economic interest(cid:146) pursuant to Article 90 (2) of the EC Treaty and to
what extent compensation facilities are granted for their procurement. The report does not address in
particular the compatibility with the EC Treaty of state guarantees in favour of certain banks.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2985/98 by John McCARTIN Headage and premium payments in Ireland
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: Ireland, agricultural guidance, aid to disaster victims, cattle, livestock, natural disaster, producer organisation, sheep

C 320/20

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.11.1999

This means that producer organisations may already apply any specific regulatory measure to tropical fruits.
Operational funds may be used for this purpose, whether for intervention (subject to the limits laid down by
Regulation (EC) 2200/96) or for measures under operational programmes to improve quality, develop
marketing or promote these products.

The Commission therefore considers that the existing instruments provide an answer to the problems of
regulating the production and marketing of tropical fruits.

Furthermore, Regulation (EC) 2200/96 provides for the introduction of specific measures to increase
competitiveness and promote certain products of great local importance and facing strong international
competition where the normal instruments of the market organisation are inadequate or unsuitable.

The Commission has no data other than those regularly published by the statistical offices of the various
Member States and by Eurostat. There is little information on recent changes in the areas planted to tropical
fruits and the quantities harvested. Apart from avocados and bananas, the tropical fruit most produced in the
Community is pineapples, which amount to almost 40 000 tonnes (the equivalent of 1 300 hectares) in the
French overseas departments (of which 75 % is accounted for by Martinique) and about 2 000 tonnes in
Portugal. The production of mangoes (mainly in Réunion: 3 500 tonnes on 200 hectares) and papayas is still
only marginal.

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(1999/C 320/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2982/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: National aid packages to pig meat producers

Will the Commission comment on the recent packages of national aid for pigmeat producers announced by
the French and German Governments and state whether such national aids are in keeping with the principles
of the single market for agricultural produce?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 1998)

The Commission has contacted the French and German authorities to request detailed information about the
support measures for the pig sector announced by the Member States concerned, in order to determine
whether these measures include state aid, and if so whether the aid can be considered compatible with Articles
92-94 of the EC Treaty.

(1999/C 320/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2985/98

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Headage and premium payments in Ireland

Is the Commission aware of the severe hardship being suffered by farmers in Ireland, particularly in the West
because of the abnormally heavy rainfall and will the Commission consider bringing forward headage and
premium payments to relieve the hardship on family farms?
Resolution on the death penalty passed on Rocco Derek Barnabei in the United States
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: EU national, United States, death penalty, suspension of sentence













EUR-Lex - 51998IP0911 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51998IP0911

Resolution on the death penalty passed on Rocco Derek Barnabei in the United States  


Official Journal C 328 , 26/10/1998 P. 0193 





B4-0911, 0917, 0925 and 0940/98Resolution on the death penalty passed on Rocco Derek Barnabei in the United StatesThe European Parliament,- having regard to its previous resolutions on the death penalty,A. whereas in its resolution adopted on 3 April 1998, the 54th UN Commission on Human Rights considered the abolition of the death penalty to be a reinforcement of human dignity and to represent progress in the system of human rights, and called on the UN member states to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to the total abolition of the death penalty,B. whereas the decision of the General Affairs Council of 29 June 1998 aimed at strengthening the international activities of the European Union in opposition to the death penalty 'as an integral part of its human rights policy' with the universal abolition of capital punishment as its goal,C. whereas, in the State of Virginia, the date of 28 October 1998 has been set for the execution of Rocco Derek Barnabei, who is accused of murdering a young woman in 1993,D. stressing that possible fresh evidence - which came to light after the time limit permitted under the law of the State of Virginia for a normal retrial - could enable Barnabei to prove his innocence,E. whereas Barnabei is having difficulties in raising the money for an adequate defence and is distressed by his conditions of detention,1. Calls on the Governor of the State of Virginia to commute the sentence passed on Rocco Derek Barnabei and in any event to oppose his execution;2. Underlines the supreme value of human life and its total opposition to the application of the death penalty, a denial of the most basic principles of civil society and human rights enshrined in international conventions,3. Calls, in the presence of fresh and relevant evidence which could alter the verdict, for Rocco Derek Barnabei to be guaranteed the right to prove his innocence of the crime for which he has been sentenced to death;4. Calls on the Council to launch a firm initiative against the death sentence passed on Barnabei, thereby acting on the joint declaration of 8 June 1998 in which the foreign ministers of the European Union stated their support for the adoption of a position on the death sentence in particularly serious or unjust situations;5. Repeats its conviction that the UN General Assembly should immediately decree a moratorium on capital punishment and calls on the Council and the Member States to promote this;6. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Federal Government of the United States of America and the Governor of the State of Virginia.15
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2966/98 by Esko SEPPÄNEN to the Commission. Electronic eavesdropping
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: European Parliament, SEPPAENEN
Subjects: Europe, France, United States, fundamental rights, protection of communications, protection of privacy, secret service

21.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 142/63

(1999/C 142/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2966/98

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Electronic eavesdropping

According to the French magazine Marianne, the French secret service carries out electronic eavesdrop-
ping in America and Europe. The magazine reports that the Germans buy these services from the French.

Is the Commission aware of such activity, which is reminiscent of the Echelon system operated by the US
NSA and used by GCHQ in England and is likely to constitute a violation of laws on individual liberty?
What will the Commission do to safeguard citizens’ rights?

Will the Commission soon reply to the priority question which I tabled several months ago (time limit for
reply: 1 month) concerning the Echelon system?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1998)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answer to his written question P-1894/98, (1)
which was given on 29 September 1998.

(1) See page (à compléter svp).

(1999/C 142/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2970/98

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: Infringement of the Directive on the award of public service contracts

With reference to my earlier question E-4217/97 (1), the Commission’s reply of 16 February 1998 and DG
XV’s note No 4833, addressed to the leaders of the minority parties on Mantua town council, which
announces the Commission’s intention to take no further action on their complaint in view of the
information supplied by the Italian Government, could the Commission state whether:

1.

2.

3.

it is aware of the successive petitions lodged by the leader of the opposition on the town council with a
view to precipitating further inquiries?

on the basis of the facts alleged in those successive statements, it agrees that the information provided
by the Government is incomplete and inaccurate?

it agrees that it would be reprehensible to condone a substantive infringement of Directive 92/50 (2),
which might set a regrettable precedent as regards the need for strict compliance with the rules
governing the award of public service contracts?

(1) OJ C 354, 19.11.1998, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

1.
The Commission has examined the letter it received from the opposition councillors on Mantua town
council in response to the communication announcing its intention to take no further action on this affair.

After studying the above-mentioned letter in detail, the Commission did not feel that it contained any

2.
convincing new information which might cast doubt on the statements made by the Italian authorities.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3044/98 by José APOLINÁRIO to the Commission. EU-funds for the trade sector
Date: 1998-10-08
Institutions: APOLINARIO, European Parliament
Subjects: EU Member State, EU aid, budget, common commercial policy, implementation of the budget, social partners

14.5.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 135/159

The Commission has no instruments at its disposal to speed up ratification procedures in national
4.
parliaments. It can only underline the importance of ratification for the whole Energy Charter process, and
especially for the creation of an investor friendly climate in the transition countries.

(1999/C 135/197)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3044/98

by José Apolinário (PSE) to the Commission

(8 October 1998)

Subject: EU-funds for the trade sector

What percentage of EU funding goes on trade in the following areas, broken down by single Member State
if possible:

1.

2.

3.

Item B3-4000, ‘Industrial relations and social dialogue’;

Item B3-4002, ‘Information and training measure for workers’ organisations’;

Item B3-4003, ‘Information, consultation, and participation of representatives of undertakings’;

4. Administrative funds via DG XXIII in the fields of trade and support for SMES;

5. Leonardo Programme.

Can the Commissioner also tell me how and to what extent the social partners in the commercial sector are
funded with EU monies, and provide data on their implementation, broken down by Member State?

Answer given by Mr Papoutsis on behalf of the Commission

(4 December 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Question E-2097/98 by
Mr Blak (1).

(1) See page 14.

(1999/C 135/198)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3050/98

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(2 October 1998)

Subject: Dutch study of phthalates

1. Why did the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment set a higher TDI
level in April 1998 than in 1994?

2. Why was the assumed weight of the baby raised from 5 kg in the committee’s report of February to
8 kg in that of April 1998 and the assumed sucking time reduced from 12 to 6 hours, with the result that
only 2, instead of the former 3, phthalates were classified as potentially dangerous?

3.
The Scientific Committee estimates that phthalate intake from toys only accounts for 10-30 % of
total exposure. Why does the Committee nevertheless take the full TDI value (instead of only 10-30 %) as
the basis for its recommendation regarding the withdrawal of phthalates, thus ignoring a fact which it had
earlier pointed out itself?